State of Tennessee v. Rodney Paul Starnes, II
Syllabus
Defendant, Rodney Paul Starnes, II, was indicted by the Dyer County Grand Jury for one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver synthetic cannabinoids. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the affidavit in support of a search warrant was defective and failed to give rise to probable cause because the affidavit contained no information establishing a confidential informant's basis of knowledge. The trial court granted Defendant's motion based upon the then controlling authority of State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d. 430 (Tenn. 1989), and the State appealed. Following our review of the record and pertinent authorities, including the Tennessee Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2017), we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings in the trial court.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that Commerce’s analysis applying the four part framework was a reasonable interpretation of the statute
- explaining that “the comparative deficiencies” would also be relevant
- in determining a surrogate for constructed value, “[t]he size of any subsidies would obviously be relevant, as would the comparative deficiencies of the alternative sources.”
- “accuracy Consol. Court No. 1:21-cv-00616 Page 27 and fairness must be Commerce’s primary objectives”
- sustaining Commerce’s use of the four factors as “reasonable”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Presiding Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.